Brij Mohan Tayla vs Union Of India (Uoi)
1998 Latest Caselaw 1101 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. This is ah appeal preferred against the judgement of the learned Additional District Judge dated 28.9.1979, deciding the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') bearing LAG No. 23/78. The Land Acquisition Collector had, vide Award No. 6-B/74-75 dated 28.9.1970, awarded compensation @ Rs. 800/- per bigha for the lands in Block 'A' and Rs. 200/- per bigha for

the lands in Block 'B', belonging to the appellant in Village Oldanpur, Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the said village was issued on 13.11.1959 while the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 9.8.1966.

2. The learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,750/-per bigha for both the blocks. The appellant in the appeal claims further enhancement by Rs. 10,000/- per bigha, i.e. Rs. 15,750/- per bigha, in addition to interest and solatium, as permissible under the statute.

3. Appellant had also moved CMP 1807/96 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission of the Court to claim further enhancement in compensation to Rs. 20,000/- instead of Rs. 15,750/-. Another application under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC, being CMP 1805/96, for being permitted to lead additional evidence was moved. The said application for leading additional evidence was allowed by this Court vide orders dated 3.12.1996. The application under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, seeking enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per bigha, was ordered to be taken up along with the appeal. This application claiming amendment seeking enhanced compensation is allowed. Necessary Court fee has been paid.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decisions of this Court in (i) RFA 417168 titled Sukhbir Saran v. Union of India, decided on 8.8.1994, wherein compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha has been awarded in respect of lands acquired in Shahdara Chandrawali villages, (ii) RFA 123/73 titled Union of India v. Ram Singh, decided on 8.8.1994, wherein Rs. 20,000/- per bigha was awarded as compensation for the lands acquired in Village Mandaoli. The date of notification under Section 4 of the Act being 24.10.1961, (iii) RFA 86-D/65 titled Union of India v. .Anwarul Haq decided on 2.4.1975 wherein compensation for the lands acquired in Villages, Shahdara Chandrawali, was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per bigha. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in this case was issued on 18.10.1960.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants, apart from reliance on the aforesaid decisions, has submitted that the father of the appellant had carried out demarcation and certain developmental activity, including laying of a Kutcha road in respect of the land in question and had even sold out about 12/13 plots during the period from 1955 to 1957, which left him with an area of 5 Bighas and 11 Biswas, which is the subject-matter of this acquisition.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court below have failed to take into consideration that a lay out plan in respect of a colony on the acquired land had been approved and the sanction for the same was evidenced by Exhibits A/1, A/2, A/3 and P/6. Besides, land situated in Dilshad Garden, which was at a greater distance from Delhi in comparison to the land in dispute, as on the date of the notification under Section 4, was fetching a price of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. It was urged that the Trial Court also erred in not taking into consideration the land situated in Krishna Colony, Shahdara where the rate prevalent was Rs. 42/- per sq. yard. He argued that comparison should not have been made with the agricultural land in Village Karkardooma where Rs. 6,000/- per bigha were awarded

since the same was large agricultural land whereas in the present case certain plots had been cut and sold for residential purpose as far back as 1955. In other words, the plea is that the land in question has great potential as building site and should have been valued accordingly.

7. We have considered the site plan and the map placed on record. We find that the land in question cannot be compared with the fully developed land in Chandrawali or Shahdara, which are at a distance. We find that the land in question in Oldanpur is proximate to and is comparable to Seelampur. This Bench had the occasion to consider the case for enhancement of compensation in respect of lands falling in Village Seelampur, acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 13.11.1959. This Bench, after considering certain decisions in which higher compensation had been awarded, viz., RFA 134/79 titled Jai Narain (deceased) through LRs. v. Union of India, held that it would follow its decision in RFA.104/75 whereby the Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 11,800/- per bigha. This Bench had observed that Shahdara has locational advantages, which Seelampur does not enjoy, viz. Shahdara being closer to the city, having a better location. This Court, accordingly, had followed the decision in RFA.107/75.

8. We find that the distinctive features between Seelampur and Shahdara also apply in the instant case for Oldanpur. The lands in Village Oldanpur cannot be compared to Shahdara, which had a comparatively better location. We also find that there is no convincing evidence with regard to the colonization and development of the land in question in Oldanpur. The date of the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act for the lands in Oldanpur are the same as in RFA 343/69 in respect of Village Seelampur. The result is that we follow the judgement of this Court in RFA 107/95 and RFA 343/69 and for the reasons stated therein and, as noticed above, market value of the land, subject matter of the present appeal, is fixed at Rs. 11,800/- per bigha. Besides this, the appellants will be entitled to 15% of the market value by way of solatium and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of dispossession till the date of payment. In view of difference of more than three years between the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, the appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum under Section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967, provided there is no overlapping in the payment of interest under Section 28 of the Act and Section 4(3) of the Amendment Act.

9. The appeal stands disposed of. Appellants will get proportionate costs in this ap peal.